If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Does that mean you don't believe EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY, under the provisions of the 2nd amendment, should have access to AR's and AK's for whatever personal use they deem neccesary?

I have no issue with properly vetting someone who wants to own a firearm.

BTW - necessary is spelled with 1 c, 2 s's.

I'll try to make this really clear, since it has been pointed out to me recently that I may make my arguments somewhat obliquely.

Who gets to say what firearms I may or may not possess as an individual...and what weapons a country may or may not possess in their perceived national interest?

You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.

Is the right to keep and bear arms strictly an American right? JD

Were it a right in many country's for the populace to be allowed weapons there would be much less cruelty in the world today. IMO

Bush said we would find weapons of mass destruction. Per the FOX NEWS article, "yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called dirty bomb". It is not a weapon and I think the president agrees or he would have been saying, "see! I told you so! I told you so!".

The people were told the threat was imminent. It was not and the president has acknowledged that, saying the intelligence he got was faulty. He then began to justify the war on other points.

He's not using WMDs to justify the war. Why are you guys still doing it?

JS

Yeah...not so much. Here's what Bush said in his State of the Union right before the war:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Does Iraq now have WMDs or the capacity, ability, or desire to make them, buy them or sell them? No. Wasn't that the desired end game with respect to Iraq and WMDs?

I have no issue with properly vetting someone who wants to own a firearm.

BTW - necessary is spelled with 1 c, 2 s's.

You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.

Were it a right in many country's for the populace to be allowed weapons there would be much less cruelty in the world today. IMO

Forgive me also for forgetting that 'Marvin Knows Best'. For individuals and countries alike. JD

You guys make me laugh . Can't admit you lost the war of posts so now have to make an attempt at being personal. Did you miss IMO (means in my opinion)? But it's nice to know you are out there unable to combat a little bit of logic with your teleprompter responses. Please, keep it coming!!

You guys make me laugh . Can't admit you lost the war of posts so now have to make an attempt at being personal. Did you miss IMO (means in my opinion)? But it's nice to know you are out there unable to combat a little bit of logic with your teleprompter responses. Please, keep it coming!!

Did you by chance watch "60 Minutes" this evening? I'll let you draw your own conclusion, I have already drawn mine about allowing really bad people to have access to anything potentially dangerous.

You have 2 subjects - but I believe it to be in our national interest & the interest of those who are peaceful to track & encourage peaceful use of weapons grade uranium. & the proper safeguards against unlawful use practiced by those in possession of same.

Marv:

1. Define who the "really bad people" are and how you reached that decision.

2. Identify who decides another nation-state is "really bad" and how and why they get to decide another nation-state is "really bad."

3. If Venezuela starts building nuclear power plants with the help of Russia, are the "really bad people" gaining access to "anything potentially dangerous?" If so, how would you stop that specific nation-state from building a nuclear power plant?

1. Define who the "really bad people" are and how you reached that decision.

2. Identify who decides another nation-state is "really bad" and how and why they get to decide another nation-state is "really bad."

3. If Venezuela starts building nuclear power plants with the help of Russia, are the "really bad people" gaining access to "anything potentially dangerous?" If so, how would you stop that specific nation-state from building a nuclear power plant?

It's Always Easier On Paper Regards,

Joe S.

1) If they are backed by radical muslims they are prolly bad.

2) Korea and Iran...they nations that have the most to lose or suffer damage.